IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
BEFORE : Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. SUBBIAH PRESIDENT
Thiru R VENKATESAPERUMAL MEMBER
F.A.NO.335/2019
(Against order in CC.NO.32/2006 on the file of the DCDRC, Vellore)
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023
1. D. Narasimman (Died)
2. Mrs. Gajalakshmi
W/o. Late D.Narasimman
3. Gopalakrishnan
S/o. Late D.Narasimman
4. Mrs. Vijayalakshmi
D/o. Late D.Narasimman
5. Mrs. Jayalakshmi
Mother of Late D.Narasimman
All are residing at
Moosavadi Village & Post
Peranamallur, Vandavasi Taluk M/s.V. Balaji
Thiruvannamalai District Counsel
Pin Code – 604 407 Appellants / Complainants
Vs.
1. M/s. Arunachala Motors
Rep. by its Manager
No.15, Kamaraj Road
Belliappa Nagar, Walajapet PP effected, called absent
Vellore Districte- 632 513
2. M/s. John Deere Equipment Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Area Manager
At Block-C, Shakthi Towers-III M/s.A. Aridas
No.766, Anna Salai, Counsel for 2nd Respondent
Chennai- 600 002
3. The Branch Manager
State Bank of India
Pernamallur Branch
Kammalar Street, Vandavasi Taluk
Thiruvannamalai District Respondents / Opposite parties
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission had dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the complainant praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.17.10.2018 in CC.No.32/2006.
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 24.1.2023, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for appellant and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order:
ORDER
JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the complainant as against the order dt.17.10.2018 passed by the District Commission, Vellore, in CC.No.32/2006 by dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant herein holding that the complainant cannot be termed a consumer.
2. For the sake of convenience parties are referred as per ranking before the District Commission.
3. The brief facts of the complaint before the District Commission are as follows:
The complainant had approached the opposite party to purchase a tractor, manufactured by the 2nd opposite party, alongwith paddy harvester, with the intention of using the same for eking out his livelihood. The 1st opposite party, by making deliberate false statements, mislead the complainant and made him to purchase a tractor, manufactured by the 2nd opposite party, alongwith paddy harvester. The complainant had paid a sum of Rs.9,77,700/-, as sale consideration for purchase of tractor alongwith paddy harvester. The Tractor alongwith paddy harvester was delivered to the complainant on 23.2.2006, but from the very first day itself the paddy harvester with tractor is not functioning properly, due to poor manufacturing by using inferior quality materials. The complainant pointed out various defect to the opposite party by taking the tractor and paddy harvester to the opposite party, and also sent several letters to the opposite party to rectify various defects. But both the opposite parties have not come forward to rectify the defects, hence the tractor with the paddy harvester is lying unused from 19.5.2006. Therefore, the complainant caused lawyer notice dt.24.6.2006 to both the opposite parties. For the lawyer notice, the opposite parties have replied on 14.7.2006 by giving deliberate false statements. However the 2nd opposite party in their reply admitted that the 1st opposite party is their authorized agent. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission praying for a direction to the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.977700/- alongwith compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for loss incurred and Rs.1 lakh towards the mental agony and humiliation cased by the opposite parties.
4. The opposite parties 1 & 2 have remained absent before the District Commission, hence they were set exparte before the District Commission, and an order had been passed on merit, by dismissing the complaint. The complaint against the 3rd opposite party was dismissed, since 3rd opposite party was given up in the complaint.
5. In support of their contentions, proof affidavits were filed by both parties alongwith documents which were marked as Ex.A1 to A12 on the side of the complainant. There were no documents filed on the side of the opposite parties.
6. The District Commission, after analysing the evidence had come to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, had dismissed the complainant on the reasoning that the complainant is not a consumer since he had used the tractor for commercial purpose. Aggrieved over the order impugned, this appeal has been preferred by the complainant as appellant.
7. Before this commission, the 1st Respondent/ 1st opposite party though served with notice, remained absent. The 2nd Respondent, though appeared through counsel, had not appeared for the arguments. Hence we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
8. The District Commission had dismissed the complaint by stating that as per Ex.A6, letter written by the complainant to the Manager John Deere, he has stated that his business was spoiled due to the act of the opposite parties. Therefore, considering the fact that the complainant himself had admitted that his business was spoled, the purchase of the tractor in question cannot be considered for his livelihood. Thus holding, had dismissed the complaint.
9. As per the order impugned, the District Commission has framed two issues:
(1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the consumer fora?
(2) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
10. We find that in the complaint as well as in the proof affidavit, the complainant had stated that he purchased the said tractor only for the purpose of eking out his livelihood. Further in our opinion, the District Commission cannot automatically presume that the purchase of tractors is only for commercial purpose, especially when the opposite parties have not come forward to contest the case inspite of receipt of the notice.
11. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ complainant had cited catena of judgements:
In the case of Lilavatikirtilal Mehta Medical Trust Vs. Unique Shanti Developers & Ors. Reported in 2019 (IV) CPJ 65 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
“the identity of the person making the purchase or the value of the transaction is not conclusive to the question of whether it is for a commercial purpose. It has to be seen whether the dominant intention or dominant purpose for the transaction was to facilitate some kind of profit generation for the purchaser and/or their beneficiary”.
By relying upon the above judgement learned counsel for the complainant would submit that since the complainant purchased the tractor with paddy harvester only for agricultural purpose, the dominant purpose is only for agricultural operation. Therefore the complaint is maintainable.
The learned counsel for the complainant also had drawn our attention to the judgements of the Hon’ble National Commission viz. 2005 (IV) CPJ 206 (NC); 2007 (1) CPJ 140 (NC); 2008 (II) CPJ 240 (NC); 2009 (i) CPJ 30 (NC); 2009 (I) CPJ 152 (NC), wherein it has been held that the “Purchaser of machines, is a consumer if defects developed within warranty irrespective of commercial purpose”.
12. From the reading of the above judgements it could be seen that the tractors which have been purchased for agricultural operations, developed defects if any during the warranty period, irrespective of commercial purpose, the purchaser would come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.
In this case, to hold the complainant is not a consumer, the District Commission had only relied upon Ex.A6, i.e., the letter written by the complainant to the Area Manager of the Opposite party. In our considered opinion, the findings rendered by the District Commission, based on Ex.A6 have no valid reason. There is no discussion as to whether the tractors were purchased for agricultural purposes, or as to whether the defects developed during the warranty period etc.
Therefore, it would be legally justifiable if the matter is decided by framing the points viz:
- Whether the tractor had been purchased for agricultural purposes?
- Whether the defects occurred during the warranty period?
If both the above points are answered in the affirmative, then the District Commission can safely conclude that the complainant is a consumer. Whereas a perusal of the impugned order would show that without any detailed discussions, and without any valid reason the District Commission had come to such conclusion that the complainant is not a consumer, since the tractor purchased for commercial purpose.
Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside bereft of merits, and it is appropriate to remand back the matter for fresh consideration after framing the issues such as
- Whether the tractor had been purchased for agricultural purposes?
- Whether the defects occurred during the warranty period?
If the District Commission conclude the above points in affirmative, then they can decide the point of deficiency in service, and decide the quantum of compensation. The appeal is ordered accordingly.
13. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Vellore, in CC.No.32/2006 dt.17.10.2018, and the matter is remanded back for deciding the matter afresh, according to law, by framing the issues as stated above, and other relevant issues if any, and dispose of the matter preferably within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The District Commission shall issue notice to the appellant/ complainant for their appearance. There is no order as to cost in this appeal.
R VENKATESAPERUMAL R. SUBBIAH
MEMBER PRESIDENT
